And there is harm to the seller in returning it, and harm is not removed by [causing another] harm. The second [narration]: He has the right to return it, and he returns the compensation for the defect that occurred in his possession, and takes back the price. If he wishes, he may retain it and receive the compensation. This is the view of Malik and Ishaq. Al-Nakha'i and Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman said: He returns it along with the decrease caused by the defect. Al-Hakam said: He returns it, and did not mention anything alongside it. Our argument is the hadith of the musarrah [animal whose milk has been withheld]; the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) ordered its return after it had been milked, and the return of a substitute for its milk. Ahmad argued that Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) ruled regarding a garment that had a defect ('awar) that it should be returned, even if it had been worn. Also, because it is a defect that occurred in the possession of the buyer, he has the option between returning the sold item along with its compensation, or taking the compensation for the original defect, just as if its occurrence had been for the purpose of testing the sold item. Moreover, the two defects are equal, and the seller has practiced deception while the buyer did not, so protecting the buyer's interest is more appropriate. Additionally, the right to return was permissible before the occurrence of the second defect, so it is not removed except by evidence. There is neither consensus (ijma') nor a text (nass) regarding this issue in the matter, and analogy (qiyas) is only made upon a foundational principle, and there is no foundational principle for what they have mentioned, so the permissibility remains as it was. Once this is established, he returns the compensation for the defect that occurred in his possession, because the sold item in its entirety is guaranteed by him, and thus its parts are as well. If the defect that occurred in the buyer's possession ceases to exist, he returns it without any compensation alongside it, according to both narrations. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, because the impediment has been removed while the cause requiring the return remains, so its ruling is established. If he bought a slave girl, and she became pregnant in his possession, and then he encountered a defect in her, pregnancy is a defect in humans but not in others, because it prevents intercourse and is feared to cause harm. If she gives birth, the child belongs to the buyer. If the childbirth decreased her value, that is also a defect. If the childbirth did not decrease her value and the child died, it is permissible to return her because the defect has ceased. If her child is still alive, he may not return her without her child, because that would be separating between them, and that is prohibited. Sharif Abu Ja'far and Abu al-Khattab said in their "Masa'il": He has the right to rescind the contract regarding her, but not her child.